Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cheshire Setter

The Cap Paradox

Recommended Posts

The cap is already a many splendored thing.  We have marquee players and offsets from RU. Plus extras from academies. This can be twigged more I'm sure. Plus it's edging up a away. 

What would be nice is to receive income.  From tickets etc and of course TV income. With income we might get more names on the trophy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

What would be nice is to receive income.  From tickets etc and of course TV income. With income we might get more names on the trophy.

I think that's where the cap has a downward pressure on standards. 

The salary cap effectively sets the "cost of doing business" in RL (or at least, the cost of competing). When you have so many clubs reliant on an owner (many of whom don't see RL as their primary business), it sets a base level that people will resist to seeing increased.

If a club with gates of 5k can comfortably compete with a club on gates of 15k, because the game is structured that way, then why take a risk on increasing the cost base for a return that may or may not be realised?

By moving to a FFP-style model, you put the onus on the clubs to improve standards in order to compete. If club A, B and C want to spend more, then clubs D and E have an incentive to invest in areas of the business that generate higher incomes if they want to compete. A blanket cap doesn't add that pressure.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SC has never really been fit for purpose, once it started to work, marquee players were brought in to unbalance things again and ensure the same results as before the salary cap.

Teams have broken the SC rules and have just been handed a small fine. Where is the deterrent? 

The salary cap is only useful if most of the teams can spend up to it, if not, what is the point? If not - you will still end up with the same 4 or 5 names winning everything every year, like we have seen since the SC introduction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not against the cap but it’s far too low. At £2M we’ll never attract the best players from the NRL and yawnion who’s cap goes up to £9M next year.

Id’d like to see a big cap increase over the next few years, say £1/2M a year for next 5 years, but also introduce other restrictions to stop clubs just buying success. If you want to spend the full cap then you must include within your 25 man main squad say 60% home grown players. That way you can still buy top players but will also have to invest in your own development 

  • Like 1

Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

I’m not against the cap but it’s far too low. At £2M we’ll never attract the best players from the NRL and yawnion who’s cap goes up to £9M next year.

Id’d like to see a big cap increase over the next few years, say £1/2M a year for next 5 years, but also introduce other restrictions to stop clubs just buying success. If you want to spend the full cap then you must include within your 25 man main squad say 60% home grown players. That way you can still buy top players but will also have to invest in your own development

And you believe this will achieve what exactly ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have pointed out, the cap hasn't risen with inflation. Make that subtle change now and it will gradually grow over time to supplement the marquee rulings etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

And you believe this will achieve what exactly ?

Higher quality rugby and more involvement at the developmental level....larger crowds and increased sponsorship.

Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Higher quality rugby and more involvement at the developmental level....larger crowds and increased sponsorship.

Next.

So you think Toronto should have 60% home produced players ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

And you believe this will achieve what exactly ?

Make SL more attractive to top quality players from the NRL and yawnion which in turn is likely to make those clubs attract bigger sponsors and get bigger crowds 

may point abut a home grown rule change was to ensure clubs also continue to invest in their own youth and not just try to buy success - if you want to spend more then you have to invest more in youth development. Those that want to spend the increased cap must have a bigger proportion of their home grown players in their 25 man squad


Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you think Toronto should have 60% home produced players ?

By say 2025 yes, or maybe give them an extra few years of dispensation 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Make SL more attractive to top quality players from the NRL and yawnion which in turn is likely to make those clubs attract bigger sponsors and get bigger crowds 

may point abut a home grown rule change was to ensure clubs also continue to invest in their own youth and not just try to buy success - if you want to spend more then you have to invest more in youth development. Those that want to spend the increased cap must have a bigger proportion of their home grown players in their 25 man squad

And you believe this will create a better more competitive SL ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Have to disagree about the Brexit referendum - it was an exciting closely-matched affair that could have gone wither way...   it's just the 3 years of post-match analysis that's spoiled it

No from  start to finish it was Parky v the World of expansion on steroids!

It was a boring as Saints win  ....  again!

And it had more holes and lies and angry people than an SL club salary cap return form for powers that be!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap doesnt work as intended, has many negative unintended consequences, is morally repugnant and fundamentally incompatible with the structure we have.

Other than that though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you think Toronto should have 60% home produced players ?

If we got rid of the cap it would go to 80% quickly....forget this 60% stuff....time to think BIG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

morally repugnant

How is a cap immoral?   Wasn’t it put in place to help prevent clubs going bust?   Or do you mean the controversy surrounding the breaches by Wigan, Leeds and Saints. And Bradford and Salford. And I think Wakefield.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

How is a cap immoral?   Wasn’t it put in place to help prevent clubs going bust?   Or do you mean the controversy surrounding the breaches by Wigan, Leeds and Saints. And Bradford and Salford. And I think Wakefield.

I mean a group of rich men forming a cartel to stop someone earning their market value is morally repugnant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I mean a group of rich men forming a cartel to stop someone earning their market value is morally repugnant

Surely it’s the richer clubs who don’t want it?   And fans of the poorer clubs who welcome it? 

Can I advise HMRC that they’re morally repugnant for stopping me earning my market value? 😊

Edited by Cheshire Setter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Surely it’s the richer clubs who don’t want it?   And fans of the poorer clubs who welcome it? 

Can I advise HMRC that they’re morally repugnant for stopping me earning my market value? 😊

The cap needs to be increased (and soon) to let RL remain competitive with other sports.  Keep a cap but increase it by 50% and allow 4 marquee players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Surely it’s the richer clubs who don’t want it?   And fans of the poorer clubs who welcome it? 

Can I advise HMRC that they’re morally repugnant for stopping me earning my market value? 😊

I'm not sure what HMRC are doing to stop you earning your market value. 

But whoever wants it the effect is the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that raising the cap will mean 4 or five clubs will sign the best players is silly. That is exactly what happens now, every year clubs like Salford lose players and not always those out of contract.

The cap should stay but rise in line with inflation (after accounting for the money in marque players)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would 3 Marquee and a cap of 2.5m sound? 

Would that promote more star power while still ensuring the not so wealthy  clubs are not blown away by spending? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure what HMRC are doing to stop you earning your market value.

Taking 62% from me so Starbucks and Facebook can get a break 😉 My fault I suppose for doing a job with a salary instead of starting a coffee chain with an overseas office 😁

Seriously though, the idea of a cap is regulation for the greater good.   We do this in society because we know humans as individuals are greedy.   Just for example, here are two recent lessons on what happens when you decide to de-regulate things:

(1) Banks.   Result?   The GFC

(2) Airliner design oversight.   Result?   Many deceased passengers.

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

The cap needs to be increased (and soon) to let RL remain competitive with other sports.  Keep a cap but increase it by 50% and allow 4 marquee players.

I know, I was just being a little facetious responding to a spurious comment.   Naughty me, back to the discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...